9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Second Appeal Nos.681 and 682 of 2005 dated 28/3/2016, by which the learned tribunal has dismissed the said appeals confirming the orders passed by the Deputy Sales Tax Commissioner (Appeal-I), Ahmedabad dated 20/6/2005 as well as the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Unit-5, Ahmedabad dated 8/11/2004 for the Financial Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the dealer has preferred the present appeals with the following proposed questions of law :- "(a). Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned tribunal was right in law in holding that the re-assessment order under Central Sales Tax Act passed by the Sales Tax Officer was valid and legal, though the said order was passed without issuing legal statutory notice in Form VI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16,20,14,511/-, out of which according to the dealer, Rs. 2,74,84,499/- was under consignment sale which falls under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the CST Act" for short). According to the dealer, as the goods were transferred under section 6A, they deducted the same amount from the total turnover and did not pay the sale tax on the said value. 4.02. The Sales Tax Officer passed and confirmed the assessment orders on 22/3/2001 under Rule 36 in terms of section 41 for financial year 1998-1999 as per the value declared by the appellant in the returns filed by it from time to time. That thereafter a notice in form No.37 under section 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 was issued and served upon the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed the said appeal by reasoned order. On an appeal, the learned tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the dealer and has confirmed the order passed by both the authorities below. Hence, the dealer has preferred the present appeal. 4.05. Similar orders are passed with respect to subsequent financial years, which is subject matter of Tax Appeal No.1518 of 2010. 5.00. Mr.Hardik Modh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant dealer has vehemently submitted that the authorities below have materially erred in not properly appreciating the fact that as such the dealer produced other documents to show that the goods in case of three transactions were consignment sale and as such were not inter-State sale and therefore, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d forged one. As per section 6A of the CST Act, the burden is upon the dealer to prove by producing evidence / prescribed particulars in the prescribed Form obtained from the appropriate authority (FForm), if the dealer claims that he is not liable to pay tax under CST Act. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the dealer did produce F-Forms containing prescribed particulars. However, on inquiry it was found by the Sales Tax Officer that F-Forms produced by the dealer were fake and forged one. Therefore, the dealer could not prove and/or substantiate that on the transactions in question the dealer is not liable to pay CST and / or could not prove that the transactions were not inter-State sale. The F-Forms produced by the dealer we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
